Culture » February 27, 2004

Passion: Regular or Decaf?

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

Those who virulently criticized Mel Gibson’s The Passion even before its release seem unassailable: Are they not justified to worry that the film, made by a fanatic Catholic known for occasional anti-Semitic outbursts, may ignite anti-Semitic sentiments?

More generally, is The Passion not a manifesto of our own (Western, Christian) fundamentalists? Is it then not the duty of every Western secularist to reject it, to make it clear that we are not covert racists attacking only the fundamentalism of other (Muslim) cultures?

The Pope’s ambiguous reaction to the film is well known: Upon seeing it, deeply moved, he muttered “It is as it was”—a statement quickly withdrawn by the official Vatican speakers. The Pope’s spontaneous reaction was thus replaced by an “official” neutrality, corrected so as not to hurt anyone. This shift, with its politically correct fear that anyone’s specific religious sensibility may be hurt, exemplifies what is wrong with liberal tolerance: Even if the Bible says that the Jewish mob demanded the death of Christ, one should not stage this scene directly but play it down and contextualize it to make it clear that Jews are collectively not to be blamed for the Crucifixion. The problem of such a stance is that it merely represses aggressive religious passion, which remains smoldering beneath the surface and, finding no release, gets stronger and stronger.

This prohibition against embracing a belief with full passion may explain why, today, religion is only permitted as a particular “culture,” or lifestyle phenomenon, not as a substantial way of life. We no longer “really believe,” we just follow (some of) the religious rituals and mores out of respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong. Indeed, what is a “cultural lifestyle” if not that every December in every house there is a Christmas tree—although none of us believes in Santa Claus? Perhaps, then, “culture” is the name for all those things we practice without really believing in them, without “taking them seriously.” Isn’t this why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians,” as a threat to culture—they dare to take seriously their beliefs? Today, ultimately, we perceive as a threat to culture those who immediately live their culture, those who lack a distance toward it.

Jacques Lacan’s definition of love is “giving something one doesn’t have.” What one often forgets is to add the other half: “… to someone who doesn’t want it.” This is confirmed by our most elementary experience when somebody unexpectedly declares passionate love to us: Isn’t the reaction, preceding the possible affirmative reply, that something obscene and intrusive is being forced upon us? This is why, ultimately, passion is politically incorrect; although everything seems permitted in our culture, one kind of prohibition is merely displaced by another.

Consider the deadlock that is sexuality or art today. Is there anything more dull and sterile than the incessant invention of new artistic transgressions—the performance artist masturbating on stage, the sculptor displaying human excrement? Some radical circles in the United States recently proposed that we rethink the rights of necrophiliacs. In the same way that people sign permission for their organs to be used for medical purposes, shouldn’t they also be allowed to permit their bodies to be enjoyed by necrophiliacs? This proposal is the perfect example of how the PC stance realizes Kierkegaard’s insight that the only good neighbor is a dead neighbor. A corpse is the ideal sexual partner of a tolerant subject trying to avoid any passionate interaction.

On today’s market, we find a series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol. The list goes on: virtual sex as sex without sex, the Colin Powell doctrine of war with no casualties (on our side, of course) as war without war, the redefinition of politics as expert administration as politics without politics. Today’s tolerant liberal multiculturalism wishes to experience the Other deprived of its Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically holistic approach to reality, while features like wife beating remain out of sight). Along the same lines, what this tolerance gives us is a decaffeinated belief, a belief that does not hurt anyone and never requires us to commit ourselves.

Today’s hedonism combines pleasure with constraint. It is no longer “Drink coffee, but in moderation!” but rather “Drink all the coffee you want because it is already decaffeinated.” The ultimate example is chocolate laxative, with its paradoxical injunction “Do you have constipation? Eat more of this chocolate!”—the very thing that causes constipation.

The structure of the “chocolate laxative,” of a product containing the agent of its own containment, can be discerned throughout today’s ideological landscape. Consider how we relate to capitalist profiteering: It is fine IF it is counteracted with charitable activities—first you amass billions, then you return (part of) them to the needy. The same goes for war, for the emerging logic of humanitarian militarism: War is OK insofar as it brings about peace and democracy, or creates the conditions to distribute humanitarian aid. And does the same not hold true for democracy and human rights? It is OK to “rethink” human rights to include torture and a permanent emergency state, if democracy is cleansed of its populist “excesses.”

Does this mean that, against the false tolerance of liberal multiculturalism, we should return to religious fundamentalism? The very absurdity of Gibson’s vision makes clear the impossibility of such a solution. Gibson first wanted to shoot the film in Latin and Aramaic and show it without subtitles. Under pressure, he allowed subtitles, but this compromise was not just a concession to commercial demands. Sticking to the original plan would have displayed the self-refuting nature of Gibson’s project: That is to say, the film without subtitles shown in large suburban malls would turn its intended fidelity into the opposite, an incomprehensible exotic spectacle.

But there is a third position, beyond religious fundamentalism and liberal tolerance. One should not put forth the distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and Islam, a la Bush and Blair, who never forget to praise Islam as a great religion of love and tolerance that has nothing to do with disgusting terrorist acts. Instead, one should gather the courage to recognize the obvious fact that there is a deep strain of violence and intolerance in Islam—that, to put it bluntly, something in Islam resists the liberal-capitalist world order. By transposing this tension into the core of Islam, one can conceive such resistance as an opportunity: It need not necessarily lead to “Islamo-Fascism,” but rather could be articulated into a Socialist project. The traditional European Fascism was a misdirected act of resistance against the deadlocks of capitalist modernization. What was wrong with Fascism was NOT (as liberals keep telling us) its dream of a people’s community that overcomes capitalist competition through a spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice, but how these motives were deformed by a specific political twist. Fascism, in a way, took the best and turned it into the worst.

Instead of trying to extract the pure ethical core of a religion from its political manipulations, one should ruthlessly criticize that very core—in ALL religions. Today, when religions themselves (from New Age spirituality to the cheap spiritualist hedonism of the Dalai Lama) are more than ready to serve postmodern pleasure-seeking, it is consequently, and paradoxically, only a thorough materialism that is able to sustain a truly ascetic, militant and ethical stance.

Slavoj Žižek, a Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the the Institute for Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London. He has also been a visiting professor at more than 10 universities around the world. Žižek is the author of many books, including Living in the End Times, First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, The Year of Dreaming Dangerously and Trouble in Paradise.

Yeah, like you were there. Shut the fuck up, all of you.Posted by f on 2004-03-16 03:50:12

I am what might be called a "left-wing" Catholic. Mel Gibson got it all wrong! Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew who was executed by the Roman State for threatening the current world view, ie, male, exclusivist, militarist. That some members of the Jewish (Vichy?) leadership might have agreed with this assessment is probably true. The common people, the down and outers, the excluded certainly did not howl for his execution. Pilate was not a milquetoast Roman governor. He was as brutal as they came in those days. He would not hesitate to use the empire's favorite means of capital punishment against any rebel, real or perceived. Jesus was executed by the state. Jesus never renounced his Judaism, but sought to include all of humanity at the Father's banquet table. Evidently this threatened the high and the mighty. Therefore, anti-Semitism is a no brainer for a Christian--or at least it should be. I for one, am tired of fundamentalists of all stripes, those "exclusivists" who condmemn and murder other human beings because "their book" says so. I reject all fanatics, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu who kill in the name of God. Enough! Gibson showed us nothing of the "real" rabbi from Nazareth.Posted by Tom Sciamanna on 2004-03-15 08:16:24

The Jews DO control Hollywood. That's why Shindler's List was RUSHED to DVD without any extras to speak of. They wanted something out there when Mel's film caught a wave. I'm not a Holocaust denier. It did happen, but Sharon is a fucking mass murderer. When do we stop allowing Jews to be such fucking killers? Do we allow blacks to walk around being killers because so many were killed as slaves? Israel is stealing land and building an illegal wall and has tons of WMD, Sharon is a killer, and you Jews who think different can go fuck yourselves. Mel Gibson will pay a price in Hollywood...it just takes time.Posted by sdrturds on 2004-03-14 23:55:05

If Marcel Idels thinks Islamic fundamentalism is to be lionized because it's some sort of putative anti-imperialism, then he needs to unhand his dick and his two-bit copy of the Quran (yeah, I know, referring to the Quran as two-bit is redundant).
I'll take U.S. Hegemony, Incorporated over Islam, Incorporated any day. Does Idels really think liberty and justice for all is what Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Ansar-Al-Islam have in mind? Don't make me laugh!!
As I've said in this space before: Islam is a religion of peace like my ass chews gum. Shame on Idels!!
Posted by Doug P. on 2004-03-12 06:42:37

Surprised to see such - Beyond American - reporting here - Zizek captures an important way that US people self-brainwash by ignoring their feelings and passion and packaginf them up in "proper attire."
I especially like the positive outlook on Islamic fundamentalism which is currently one of the only things standing between Bush-Blair-Corporate domination of the whole planet and its consciousness.Posted by MArcel Idels on 2004-03-11 11:53:21

SIR(zizek),i think you never have met any islamist or havent been to any muslim countries.islam embrace capilatizm and fasizm easily.as a left wing person,you should never give islam a reference,or any other religion,islam cant not be a sanctuary for us against capitalism.some comments about what is written below.one should see easily that how muslim countries are delibaretely put in thsese position,why are they poor?why all of them have political problems?look into history,how their borders were drawn?see why kings were appointed?blaming muslim for being countries poor just shows that how ignorant person you are.
next time study more and come back here.this kind of claims makes me angry.why cant you see how west goverment supported right wings parties in underdeveoped countries,how they supported military takeovers...please read about these things a little bitand afyter that make some why they r poor....
thank you
TTPosted by tt on 2004-03-09 05:14:11

With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with "Passion:Regular or Decaf".
I couldn't agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as "diversity" is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that's real liberation, ain't it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren't the same. The Dalai Lama and one's New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I've known "ashram culture" from the inside for some time. There's much more recognition of it's ugly sides from it's adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I've ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don't carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I'd like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the "spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice" that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for "people's community" is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn't devolve into "the socialism of fools."Posted by Doug P. on 2004-03-04 17:11:07

With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with "Passion:Regular or Decaf".
I couldn't agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as "diversity" is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that's real liberation, ain't it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren't the same. The Dalai Lama and one's New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I've known "ashram culture" from the inside for some time. There's much more recognition of it's ugly sides from it's adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I've ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don't carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I'd like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the "spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice" that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for "people's community" is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn't devolve into "the socialism of fools."Posted by Doug P. on 2004-03-04 17:10:32

With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with "Passion:Regular or Decaf".
I couldn't agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as "diversity" is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that's real liberation, ain't it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren't the same. The Dalai Lama and one's New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I've known "ashram culture" from the inside for some time. There's much more recognition of it's ugly sides from it's adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I've ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don't carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I'd like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the "spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice" that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for "people's community" is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn't devolve into "the socialism of fools."Posted by Doug P. on 2004-03-04 17:09:49

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjmac on 2004-03-03 15:14:22

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjmac on 2004-03-03 15:14:06

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:04:24

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:04:14

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:04:01

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:03:54

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:03:32

Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I've read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the 'postmodern' academy, as an 'old-style Leftist', or sometimes (Ty's preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don't think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?Posted by phatjaymac on 2004-03-03 15:03:04

hey you should look at this pic.Posted by nathan on 2004-03-02 19:44:22

Aidan made a good point. Neo-liberal capitalist globalization threatens islam. Unlike other religions Islam resists this gross occupation. It rejects all eurocentric historical offers. It refuses US imperial ambitions. That's why entire West focuses on how to create of produce a liberal Islam. Thanks to resisting power of Islam, it is refusing and destrying these plans at leat for the time-being.Posted by David on 2004-03-01 16:26:06

Islam and politics. Let me see. Can any religion actually separate itself from the day to day running of the society in which it exists? For example, Israel, it's a pure Jewish state made up of less then pure Jews. The US, don't ever forget Regan when he was been sworn in, the first thing he did while standing on the podium, was to turn to the crowd and say, "let is pray".
Islam gets a bad rap because it is so different from the other religions. As for the violent strains it shows, a Muslim can never be the one to start the aggression. It is permitted to defend yourself, your religion and your home. The problem now is that Islam is under siege from many different sources. From the direct armed actions of the USA and its poxy (Ops) proxy state, Israel, to the cultural attacks it now faces.
Posted by Aidan on 2004-03-01 14:13:30

and another thing if your idea of sanity is relative to whatever society you just happen to be in, then the acceptance of THAT kind of sanity or lets say reality, is the most absurd and pathetic madness I can think of but then again I'm not a psychoanalist Posted by Santa's Claws on 2004-03-01 11:22:45

oh yeah and while your criticizing every religon just try to find any historical, archeological, pure logical or better yet theological evidence to refute anything presented in the movie or more importantly the bible but i know Slavoj told you to close your eyes and masturbate Posted by Santa's Claws on 2004-03-01 11:08:49

why should anyone bother to "criticize the very core-in ALL religions." if they already believe there are no absolutes. Posted by Santa's Claws on 2004-03-01 10:54:01

The film is virulently Anti-Semitic. Period. Can't a "progressive" rag ever confront Anti-Semitism? Ever?
What trash. At least Gibson proved that "the Jews" don't control Hollywood. As if Reagan, Arnold, Murdock, and Sony didn't already prove the point.
Any Jews at In These Times? Care to speak up? Come on kids, open your weasley little mouths and stand up for yourselves...just once...come on...Posted by Albert Greenberg on 2004-03-01 10:53:23

Before:
Anti-semitism was about who hates jews.
Now:
It is about who the Jew hates from. Jews started to call everybody anti-semitic that they dont like.
it is huge paradigm shift!
Posted by Paul on 2004-03-01 03:39:09

I'm not sure but I have a feeling that Zizek knows fuck all about Islam, other then that which his local culture has impossed on him. It must be hard for a leading philosopher to get over his hang ups and actually sit back with an open mind and inquire about Islam, better men then Zizek have fail so whay should he be idfferent. Islam is not just about disgusting terrorist acts. Actually, in a pure Islam, such acts are looked down on. It happens not because of the religion. It happens because of men who fail to understand the religion, there is a difference. Culture for on thing inter acts and sometimes over takes the religion.
It's the same with Christ and his murder by a mob why were Jewish. Lets face it, if Jesus were to return today and talk as he did in down town New York I'm sure an angry mob of mainly Christian folk would look for his blood. The Jewish people were the power at that time and place and Jesus was a threat to it. We should not therefore blame the Jewish race for what happened, (actually, Christians should thank them as they helped to bring about their supposed salvation). Moreover, the fact that the mob was Jewish should not be deigned. They were Jewish; they wanted him dead, they, the people of that time, were to blame. Is that so hard to deal with? Should we under the heading of political correctness just hide the fact, after all, we donPosted by Aidan on 2004-03-01 02:58:09

His main point, in the last paragraph, is not clearly stated and not expanded sufficiently.Posted by laura rasmussen on 2004-02-29 23:24:51

Can Zizek ever bring himself to make even the simplest act of solidarity with Jews?
The pastor of the largest Baptist church in central Texas proclaimed last week that there is no evidence that Passion Plays ever led to the death of Jews. Another, more subtle, and thus perhaps more dangerous, form of holocaust denial.
Why is the Left still paying any attention to this Lacan bullshit?
Posted by Jim Aune on 2004-02-29 16:18:49

The antisemitism is a completely irrelevant argument, as is what about Islam.
the whole point of the article was that we should be critical of our own spirituality. From that perspective I believe that the Jews did kill JC, but he was meant to die, so it does not matter who killed him.
If the passion shows us something it is that Catholicism and Judaeism need to look less at blame and iconography and more at the individuals route into spirituality.
If you want to see a powerful movie, go and see Robert Duvall in the Apostle!Posted by isamuel on 2004-02-29 15:34:48

This article demostrates that there remains a religous realpolitik. It's difficult to explain in words, but rather passion is it's true expression. This movie has within it and with what it could have left out demostrated this particular dichotomy. So this movie comes down to, as the author claims, an act of fidelity or an incomprehensible exotic spectacle. It all depends on what you want to believe.
As far as Islam having a strain of violence ingrained within it I would have to agree. The followers of Islam are going through the same process as Christianity did and to some extent is still doing. The followers of Islam are using their religion as a political belief, just as Christianity did until some horrific wars and education taught them to approach politics with radical ideals. Eventually moderate ideals appeared, but at the same time so did a wealthy society. So what makes moderate thought: Democracy or money?
Posted by Jack on 2004-02-29 10:57:11

I don't know if the last message went out since this isn't my normal email. This Zizek article is very insightful about the relationship between religious fundamental "idealism" and the socialist project.
PaulPosted by maggie on 2004-02-29 09:11:39

This is a little long perhaps, but very much worth reading in relation to the various forms of "spiritual marxism" we have talked about
paulPosted by maggie on 2004-02-29 09:09:09

By Slavoj Zizek | 2.27.0
The Passion
Do you need a translator to understand this somewhat disjointed group of thoughts that barely hold together and sometimes don't? Do you need a doctorate to try and figure out these points? I don't consider myself stupid---but this is the best you can do on a major cultural event?
Let' see---Vatican II was wrong and the church should have kept blaming the Jews---all they have been doing is repressing a volcanic urge? I see, so regular showing of Birth of Nation would ease racial tensions and they wouldn't boil up into racial attacks. Is that it--or I am too stupid to see the point?
Segue into necrophilia. Okay. Then, later on, say that religious fundamentalism is not the answer---Gibson's use of subtitles show this is not possible? Did I miss the point? Is fundamentalism defined by a picture that self-limits itself to dead langugages that cannot possible pack them in at malls. The use of subtitles shows how wrong Gibson's vision is? Did I miss something?
In the third to the last paragraph---we are told that Islam has a core that can be harnessed in a socialist direction---then we are told we must criticize the core of all religions--but only materialists can be ethical?
Far be it from me to comment that 'socialists' are constantly romanticizing the 'core' of resistance to capitalism in any set of beliefs/alternative world view---and it so rarely works out in a 'progressive' manner. The slave owners resisted capitalism----lets look at that as a model of 'resistance'. Stalin set up a model--oops few mistakes there. Enver Hoxha of Albania--forget about him--he was too weird. European fascism--lets pigeonhole it as resistance to capitalism not correctly channeled. A highly disputable point and certainly not one that confidentially be asserted in a few lines.
Well, you know, I would rather have tame, polite, unpassionate religion than passion. I would rather have a billion Muslims sitting happily in front of their TVs, watching crappy Western TV and worrying about car payments--than trying to extract the core of capitalist resistance from potential Islamo-fascism.
Anyway, this is the best you can do in terms of analysis? Jesus Christ. Don't put Zisek on a talk show. Even an intellectual one. The other people and the audience will need subtitles---even if he speaks in English.Posted by Laslo on 2004-02-28 23:53:58

Ty,
it is very simple..
u dont know how to calculate.
Arabs are just 10% of entire muslim polulation.
In your first email u made a claim that "The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain."
what i m telling is that it is not true. Simple it is.
By the way? what happened in Iran? Whats the difference between in last election in Iran and the 2000 elections in USA?
"When was the last time you actually bought something manufactured in an Arab country? They have no manufacturing, no IT sectors, no drug development, no science, no human rights, no service sector, etc. etc."
Did you think why they dont have these?
May be it has something to do with oil that you are filling your tanks with a ridiculous price?
or ask yourself, why a bottle of Coca Cola is cheaper than a bottle of gas.
Posted by click on 2004-02-28 22:32:23

te amo amor da minha vida.
cPosted by Sergio on 2004-02-28 17:04:51

oh and "click" you are absolutely right about the GDP thing (and have proved it with facts). What I meant to say, but Mr Jager blocked last night, was that "Arabs" (not Islamists, obviously the Persian Iranians are exempt) have a GDP lower than Spain sans their oil revenue.
My bad, you were right there.
When was the last time you actually bought something manufactured in an Arab country? They have no manufacturing, no IT sectors, no drug development, no science, no human rights, no service sector, etc. etc.
They can make homicide bombs pretty good.
Compare that to the development of nations largely infused with "Christian/Judeo" citizens. If we want to keep going with stats comparing the 2 camps we can.
Iran was the one hope for democratic liberalization. And look what just happened. Arab states are a drain on this planet and an affront to women's rights. Posted by Ty on 2004-02-28 09:08:37

One thing I should never do is bar hop and surf the web. Plus, I hooked up with girl that actually lives in my building so I'm just hating life right now.
Anyway, here are 2 links. One that hashes the info out and the other is the link to actually buy the report.
Now, do you think the UN is a trusted source? Thomas Friedman? Or do you think the desk jockeys at In These Times who have never been the middle east are more informed?
[url=http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/english2003.html]http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/english2003.html[/url]
[url=http://www.merip.org/mero/mero072602.html]http://www.merip.org/mero/mero072602.html[/url]
oh, and to be fair one more splitting the difference-
[url=http://www.ictdar.org/presentations/GLFMS2004_files/frame.htm]http://www.ictdar.org/presentations/GLFMS2004_files/frame.htm[/url]Posted by Ty on 2004-02-28 08:36:47

If Marion I. Lipshutz is going to deplore a movie that paints a grim picture of some Jewish bureaucrats 2000 years ago, what does he/she have to say about (at least) 500 movies in which today's Arabs are depicted negatively? Come to think of it, I can't name a movie that is kind to Arabs.
As for Ty, well--he should re-acquaint himself with the term "blood libel."
Austin in DC
Posted by ATS on 2004-02-28 05:53:43

Just one more funny but hundered times heard arguments... zizek recycles himselves over and over, but maybe that's the only think one can do in this late capitalism condition. At least if you want to reactivate real politics. And in this point i'm dealing the same postition with Zizek, guy from my neighbor country Slovenia. Posted by Leon on 2004-02-28 04:14:58

Click-"The entire Muslim world has a GDP lower that Spain"- you're right, how could that possibly be true?! How ridiculous is that statement?! There are millions and millions of more Islamists than Spaniards on this planet. They would have to be retarded to produce less in a year. Please write back asking for the source! Let's be fair- a buck bet? Independent sourced?
Posted by Ty on 2004-02-27 23:06:31

Hey Ty,
u idiot..
if i follow what u've just said..
Muslim's contribution, for example, is to not having AIDS as much as Africa, Europe or US has.
U idiot..
what's US contribution to the world?
killing tens of thausands human being in every possible corner of the world.
forger Islamic world..just look your south..whats happening in Haiti..
or ask another question, what has happened in entire latin america..
US sucked their blood one after another..
yes, Islam is resisting..
u like it or not..islam is the only refuge where one can resist against capitalist world system.
yes they are underdeveloped..they have plenty of stupid problems..they are having a long list..
but, first of all, u, i mean, US, i mean, the West, comes first in that list..
"The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain. "
is that all u got..
we'll be more than happy if you show the source of your stupid claim.
or answer this question: Where is Islamic world? where it starts where it finishes?
Posted by click on 2004-02-27 22:17:57

The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain. Honestly, learn how to contribute to society and stop hating women. What are the Islmastists contributions to this world lately (and yeah, we got the numbers, try something this century)?
Can you help the AIDS epidemidic in Africa? No. Can you help the development of cancer drugs? No. The birthplace of humanity is Africa, they should be ruling the world after these eons. But they can't even figure out a way to own property. What morons. Posted by Ty on 2004-02-27 21:58:07

For Zizek, heartfelt Jewish concerns about the murderous legacy of theological antisemitism are to be dismissed as "political correctness."
Moreover, Zizek fails to notice that antisemitism was at the heart of "the traditional European fascism" that culminated in the Holocaust.
Beneath all of his pretentious intellectual posturing, Zizek has embraced "the socialism of fools."Posted by Marion I. Lipshutz on 2004-02-27 19:24:41